WP/32570/2026 of Sri Maddela Mahesh, Vs The State of Telangana, on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This r,r'rit petition is hled secking the iollowing "...to issue a wrrt more particularll one rn the rlature of mandamus declaring the arbitrary actions of the Respondent No.5 r.e., the Tahsildar in passing the impugned order vide Rc.No.B/365/2026, daled 27.O7.2026 granting easementary rights b,v in,,oking the provisions oI lndian t)asement Act, 1882 rs rllegal and void and also to declare the impugned order vide Rc.No.B/36512026, dated 18 09.2026 passed by the Respondent No.5 by directing the officials of Revenue Department, Panchayat Department and Irrigation Department to implement its earlier order, dated 2'7.07.2026 as arbitrary, illegal, void and in violation of the provisrons as contcmplaled under tht: ln.lian Easementary Rights Act, 1882 and against thc principlcs ol-natural justice and also rn violation of the F-undamental Rights Guaranteed Under Article 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India and consequentl], set aside the impugned order vide proceedings Rc.No.B/365/2026, dated -

27. O7.)O),6 and impugned order vide Rc No.U ,i]6: '2026. clared 1t3.0() 2026, as passed br Lhc llespondent No.5, b-\ (lcclanng rr as ultra-vires and illegal..."

2. l,earned counsel for the petltioner submits that the impugned proceedinss dated 27.O7.2026 w.ere issued under the Indian Easemenl Acl, 1BB2 for the u'av r,,'hich \\,'its existed from agricultural lands situated in Sy.Nos.41, 43 to 383 of Chinthapalli Reven ue Village, wherebv the said wav was obstructed by the pattedars. lt is further sltbmitted rhat on a <:omplaint given by' respondent No.6, an enquin-',r'as conducted and Tahsildar, Seerolle Mandal had issued the impugned proceedings under the Indian Easement Ar:t, 1882. It is further submitted thrrt subsequent to the issuance of impugned pro_ceedings, for implementation of the same, a separate memo 'd,as issued vide order dated 18.09.2026 for restoration of the old agricultural access road irrigation bund canal to ensure free access to the complainant's agricultural lands. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed the copv of pattedar pass books and the subject matter pertains to the S1'.No.44, which is covered in the impugned orders. It is further. submitted that under the provisions of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, the Tahsilclar has no powers to issue such impugned proceedings, as such the impugned proceedings are expressh' illegal and passed without jurisdiction and prayed to set-aside the impugned proceedings.

3. Learned Assistant (]overnment Pleader appearing for respondent authorities submits that while passing the impugned proceedings dated 27 .O7 .2026, Tahsitdar also clarihed that if any person is aggrieved by the rmpugned proceedings, they ma]' approach the competent Civil Court from the date of receipt of the said orders. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now having an alternative remedy of approaching the competent ci!'il Court if he is otherwise aggrieved, by the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated. 27.07.2026 and prayed to pass appropriate o rd ers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length seeks permission of this Court to pursue his remedies before the jurisdictronal Civil Court as the issue involves several questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicaled in this writ petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 11.O3.2O25 passed by a co ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.22396 of 2O23. 'lhe relevant portion of the said order is extracted for reference:

-r ,1 ^ ...7 . Since rt is not depicted in the vtllage. map as road tcsted in the State Government, the official respon.lents are not having anY po\r'er or authorir_\ to restore the said roa(1, rvhich is not rcsted ln the State Covernment, but if the petitioners nghrs are in violation of easement rrghts, thev are al,"r,al s having ripht ro approach competenl civil court by instituting a comprehensir,e civil suit seeking for declaration of the existjnEi road..."

6. Consrderrng the submissions made by tlte learned counsel on either side, wlthout going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with consent granting liberl.v to the petitioner to pursuc his remedies as available under law How,ever, it is made clear that the implementation of the impugned proceedings dated

27. O7.2026 shall be suspended for a period ol (03) u,eeks from the date ol this order. I r\ccordingly, this Writ Pe_tition is disposed o1'. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous appiications. if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- B. PRIYADARSHINI JAISWAL r\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR- /TTRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary for Revenue, The State of Telangana, Offlce at Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500022.

2. The District Collector, Mahabubabad, Office at Shikarkana Gadda, beside the Fire Station, Mahabubabad, Telangana - 506101

3. The Additional District Collector for Revenue, Office at Shikarkana Gadda, beside the Fire Station, Mahabubabad, Telangana - 506101

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Telangana 506'101

5. The Tahsildhar, Office at Chintapalle Revenue Village, Seerole Mandal, Mahabubabad, Telangana.

6. One CC to SRI SEEMA YASMEEN, Advocate IOPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BN To, I ,1,1.

HIGH COURT DATED: 2810912026

ORDER

WP.No.32570 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CC TODAY -t iiE SIA 14: 21r SEP 2026 R o \a J ia) 'i L1 't".7, -\...\,.:- /i' \_4r 1 I I b \l C\ 'l \